Doubles is a different game today, a game for specialists.
The top singles players give it a pass, and save their energy for the singles titles.

I do think that if more singles (specialist) players played doubles it would be good for tennis: it would good for the net-play skills of these singles players, and it would create more competition for the other (mainly) doubles teams.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

Doubles is a different game today, a game for specialists.
The top singles players give it a pass, and save their energy for the singles titles.

Put Hoad and Rosewall together (they only played a few seasons together, yet won more important titles than the Bryans), or Newcombe and Roche, and they would wipe the court with the Bryans.

It's very hard to have a two career in both single and double in this era. The players will break down if they try because the game is physically brutal. And the worst is they will never achieved as much as they concentrated on either single or double. Had the B Brothers were to committed to play single, they would never have won a record 16 slams double. They chose the RIGHT path.

"This marks the third Wimbledon title for the Bryans. Having won the U.S. Open, Australian Open, French Open and the Olympic gold medal last summer, the Bryans completed a rare "Golden Slam." Or as some are calling it, a "Golden Bryan Slam." The Bryans are the first doubles team in the Open Era to hold all four majors in their possession. If they win the upcoming US Open later this summer, the Bryans will complete an even rarer calendar Grand Slam."

“This has been the best period of our career by far,” Bob Bryan said earlier to ESPN. “Doubles takes a long time to figure out and we feel like we got it now. We wanna do this for as long as we're having fun. You'll probably see us out here when we're 50.”